Tweet
Obama The Traitor: The Hits Keep Coming
The Market Ticker ®
Karl Denninger, Editorial
10/28/2012
Excerpt:
The lid isn't going to stay on this much longer folks.
First, we have this with General Ham, who apparently had a rapid-deployment force ready to go into action when he learned that the consulate was under assault. Then:
Got that? It appears from this report that he was placed under armed arrest for attempting to rescue our people.
But it doesn't stop there; apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who attempted to respond as one would expect from Americans at-arms:
Inappropriate judgment eh? Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war by belligerents?
There isn't much that's "inappropriate" in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, we have a military that is under civilan control. That means you and I are the final arbiters of what is and is not permissible military action, not the other way around. We, and not they, make that decision.
The questions you must now ask yourself as we come into these next couple of weeks, culminating in the election, are:
We have a lot of serious problems in this country folks. Our economy is in the toilet, we have a central bank that is entirely out-of-control and a Congress that refuses to enforce the law that governs its operation (and has serially refused to do so for 100 years), we apparently are arming people who are sworn enemies of the United States and we sit back and we blow Saudi Arabian Kings who demand that the UN trash our First Amendment (and incidentally, Mr. Abdullah, go perform an anatomically-impossible act) instead of declaring him an enemy of our nation, never mind the obvious and well-documented monetary ties between his country and Al-Quaida, not to mention the 9/11 hijackers.
Some of our political candidates would like to argue over things like gay marriage, smoking pot and abortion, or promises to hand out more and more money to people in exchange for their vote. Others still would like to argue over whether one religion is superior to another. Others will bleat about how a vote that is not cast for one man is in fact a vote for another, although this is trivially proven to be mathematically false.
This is all small-ball and mental masturbation folks if, as is allged, a bunch of MANPADs that our government handed to Al-Qaida connected people start being used to shoot down airliners or our economy blows up as a consequence of unbridled, rampant deficits and QE-to-insanity.
......................................
View the complete post at:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=213277
The Market Ticker ®
Karl Denninger, Editorial
10/28/2012
Excerpt:
The lid isn't going to stay on this much longer folks.
First, we have this with General Ham, who apparently had a rapid-deployment force ready to go into action when he learned that the consulate was under assault. Then:
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
Got that? It appears from this report that he was placed under armed arrest for attempting to rescue our people.
But it doesn't stop there; apparently General Ham is not the only member of the armed forces who attempted to respond as one would expect from Americans at-arms:
The Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Inappropriate judgment eh? Like, perhaps, deciding that he was going to go do his job when our people were under attack through an act of war by belligerents?
There isn't much that's "inappropriate" in my view under such circumstances in terms of rapid response, but the CIC (that would be Obama) apparently sees things differently.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, we have a military that is under civilan control. That means you and I are the final arbiters of what is and is not permissible military action, not the other way around. We, and not they, make that decision.
The questions you must now ask yourself as we come into these next couple of weeks, culminating in the election, are:
Are you are going to remain silent and by doing so consent to the murder of four in Benghazi? If this is unacceptable to you then it is your duty as an American to do something about it. What you choose to do about it is of course up to you, and I urge lawful actions, not lawless ones, but the fact remains that our military structure means that you, and not they, are ultimately in control.
It appears that there were assets in the air that could have responded; are you going to remain silent knowing they were there and refuse to demand the public identification of the person or persons who refused to use them? It appears now that our men had designated the mortar team that was firing on them with a laser targeting device. Such an act never takes place unless there are assets in the air able to hit what's been designated as the target and everyone else in the area can see the emission of energy used to "paint" the target. We therefore know, assuming the reports of that "painting" are accurate, that some form of aerial fire support was available and was intentionally not used. Again, you must decide if this is acceptable conduct.
The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then "leaked" beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used. Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation? There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.) You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.
This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is that acceptable? Specifically, "Gun Runner" or "Fast and Furious" armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen. They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens. The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap -- it didn't start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art. Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn't manage to beat the charges on appeal. Isn't that nice?
It appears that there were assets in the air that could have responded; are you going to remain silent knowing they were there and refuse to demand the public identification of the person or persons who refused to use them? It appears now that our men had designated the mortar team that was firing on them with a laser targeting device. Such an act never takes place unless there are assets in the air able to hit what's been designated as the target and everyone else in the area can see the emission of energy used to "paint" the target. We therefore know, assuming the reports of that "painting" are accurate, that some form of aerial fire support was available and was intentionally not used. Again, you must decide if this is acceptable conduct.
The predicate to all of this appears to have been the giving of heavy munitions to militants that may have been related to or connected with (or may have actually been!) Al-Qaida, which then "leaked" beyond where the people who gave those munitions intended them to go and be used. Is it acceptable that our government gave heavy weapons to a publicly-sworn enemy of our nation? There are multiple credible reports that the reason the Benghazi safe-house was hit was because the CIA was attempting to recover those weapons through what amounted to buying them back (that is, bribery.) You must once again decide whether or not giving heavy weapons to known and declared enemies of the United State is acceptable under any circumstances, and if not, what you intend to do about it.
This is not the first time we have armed belligerents on purpose; is that acceptable? Specifically, "Gun Runner" or "Fast and Furious" armed belligerent Mexican Drug Lords when then used some of those guns to shoot a United States citizen. They also, it must be presumed, used them to shoot a lot of innocent Mexican citizens. The key question here is when we as Americans will have had enough of this crap -- it didn't start with Obama, but he sure as hell has taken to a new level of art. Back during the Iran-Contra days we indicted and convicted 11 but then sat back while George HW Bush pardoned all of those who didn't manage to beat the charges on appeal. Isn't that nice?
We have a lot of serious problems in this country folks. Our economy is in the toilet, we have a central bank that is entirely out-of-control and a Congress that refuses to enforce the law that governs its operation (and has serially refused to do so for 100 years), we apparently are arming people who are sworn enemies of the United States and we sit back and we blow Saudi Arabian Kings who demand that the UN trash our First Amendment (and incidentally, Mr. Abdullah, go perform an anatomically-impossible act) instead of declaring him an enemy of our nation, never mind the obvious and well-documented monetary ties between his country and Al-Quaida, not to mention the 9/11 hijackers.
Some of our political candidates would like to argue over things like gay marriage, smoking pot and abortion, or promises to hand out more and more money to people in exchange for their vote. Others still would like to argue over whether one religion is superior to another. Others will bleat about how a vote that is not cast for one man is in fact a vote for another, although this is trivially proven to be mathematically false.
This is all small-ball and mental masturbation folks if, as is allged, a bunch of MANPADs that our government handed to Al-Qaida connected people start being used to shoot down airliners or our economy blows up as a consequence of unbridled, rampant deficits and QE-to-insanity.
......................................
View the complete post at:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=213277
Comment